1. No category

LAW MANTRA THINK BEYOND OTHERS
(International Monthly Journal, I.S.S.N 2321 6417)
Journal.lawmantra.co.in www.lawmantra.co.in
STANDARD ESSENTIAL PATENTS AND FRAND
LITIGATION BY MS. RASHMI SINGH & MR.
PABITRA DUTTA
Standards mean a set of specifications and procedures which are established so as to provide
functionality and compatibility to products existing in the same industry.1 They are in the
form of published documents, usually by institutions which are formed to develop and
implement such standards. Standards can exist in a wide variety of areas such as food safety,
environment management, IT security etc. Similarly, patents which protect a technology
essential to a standard are known as Standard Essential Patents (“SEPs”). For example, SEPs
exist for a technology used in specifications of a construct of a USB or a Compact Disc or the
rotor blade of a wind mill, or a technology used in a chip incorporated in a Smartphone.
The rationale behind declaring a patent as SEP is to maintain compatibility of products from
different producers and ensures quality and safety of products as once a patent is declared as
SEP, it becomes mandatory to implement such a patent in a product in order to maintain its
inter-operability with other products in the market. Increased interoperability may be
translated into greater utility of products and an increased choice of complementary products
at lower prices. 2
After standardisation of a patent, the SEP holder may license it to other players for its
implementation in their products. A current patent battle which is ensuing between the SEP
holders and the SEP implementers in various countries, originates at this point. When SEPs
are widely adopted it becomes difficult for the implementer to shift to a different technology
due to lack of cost effectiveness, and thus it is likely that the SEP holder may abuse its
dominant position to set unreasonable royalty rates and impose terms contrary to anti-trust
laws.
The Setting of standards and their Licensing : What is FRAND?
Some technologies become standard because they are widely used in an industry, such as
Adobe PDF and Java (de facto standards), while some technologies are implemented by
organisations which are created for the purpose of developing, coordinating and interpreting
the technology standards. Such organisations are called Standard Setting
Organisations(“SSOs”).They are membership-driven bodies at international, national or
regional levels, comprising experts from competing companies, governments, academia and
civil society, who develop standards in response to priorities determined by public and
private-sector members. SSOs establish rules3 for rights to participate in the standardsdevelopment process, consensus based procedures for decision-making, the open availability

IV BSL LLB, ILS Law College, Pune
ETSI, “What are Standards?”, Accessed February 20, 2015.
http://www.etsi.org/standards/what-are-standards.html.
2
WIPO, “Standards and Patents”, Standing Committee on Law of Patents, Thirteenth Session (2009).
3
IEEE Standards Board Bylaws. Accessed February 19, 2015.
http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws.html
1
Volume 2
ISSUE 7
LAW MANTRA THINK BEYOND OTHERS
(International Monthly Journal, I.S.S.N 2321 6417)
Journal.lawmantra.co.in www.lawmantra.co.in
of standards’ specifications, and policies on patents’ interaction with standards. Standards are
then finalized through an approval process conducted through a consensus-based approach.4
The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (“IEEE”) and International
Telecommunication Union (“ITU”) are prominent SSOs in the cellular and Wi-Fi space. The
Telecommunications Standards Development Society, India (TSDSI) is the first Standard
Development Organisation which was established in India in 2013 with an aim to develop
and promote India specific requirements in the field of telecommunications.
The important conditions with respect to adoption of SEPs are that, firstly, the members must
disclose, prior to the adoption of a standard, IP rights that would be essential to the
implementation of a proposed standard and secondly, that members must commit to license
their SEPs to third parties at fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (“FRAND” or “RAND”)
rates. These policies have to be adhered to ensure the widespread adoption of standards, the
very purpose for which a SSO is made. Therefore, licensing a SEP on FRAND terms is a
voluntary contract between the SSO and the SEP holder.5 However, the meaning of FRAND
has not been defined by SSOs; it depends upon the nature of the transactions between the
SEP holder (“licensor”) and the SEP implementer (“licensee”).
Determination of FRAND rates: Microsoft v Motorola
Due the vague nature of FRAND terms and lack of set principles to determine them, the
licensing negotiations between the SEP holder and SEP implementer might not reach a
consensus and such a situation has led to a number of patent litigations across the world.
The FRAND royalty rates with respect to SEPs were determined for the first time by a United
States Court in the case of Microsoft Corp. v Motorola Inc.6 (“Microsoft”) in 2013. The
litigation related to two common industry standards developed by ITU (H.264 video coding
standard) and IEEE (802.11 Wi-Fi standard). These standards are used in thousand of
products such as computers, smart phones as well as X-box 360 game consoles.
In 2010, Motorola offered to license Microsoft its patents essential to the implementation of
these standards. The ITU and IEEE rules specify that royalties for patents covering the said
standards must comply with RAND requirements. A disagreement arose on the royalty rate
that Motorola proposed and Microsoft sued Motorola for breach of contract arguing that the
rates proposed by Motorola were highly unreasonable and violative of its RAND
commitment. The Court ruled in favour of Microsoft setting the FRAND royalty rates for the
SEPs in issue. The judgement provided by Justice Robart is considered as a landmark
judgment as it resolved the highly contentious issue of FRAND rate determination and also
provided a general framework for analysing RAND disputes in future.7
The analysis was mainly based on the following two considerations:
1. Hypothetical Negotiation Setup:
4
ITU, “Understanding Patents, Competition and Standardisation in Interconnected World”, July 1, 2014.
Microsoft Corp. v Motorola Inc., 696 F 3d 872.
6
Id.
7
Jorge L. Contreas, “So that’s what RAND means?: A Brief report on Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law
in Microsoft v Motorola”, PatentlyO, (April 27, 2013), http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/so-thats-whatrand-means-a-brief-report-on-the-findings-of-fact-and-conclusions-of-law-in-microsoft-v-motorola.html.
5
Volume 2
ISSUE 7
LAW MANTRA THINK BEYOND OTHERS
(International Monthly Journal, I.S.S.N 2321 6417)
Journal.lawmantra.co.in www.lawmantra.co.in
The hypothetical negotiation setup is based on the modified version of Georgia Pacific
factors8. The setup confers that the negotiations between the licensor and the licensee occur
prior to the date when the patent was adopted as a standard.9The purpose is to ascertain the
royalty upon which the parties would have agreed had they successfully negotiated an
agreement just before infringement began.10The rate is determined by considering the
importance of SEP to the standard and the importance of SEP and the standard to the product
at issue.
2. Comparable Licenses and relative value of patented technology:
The FRAND commitments provide that the licenses have to be given to the licensees free of
any unfair discrimination11, therefore a licensor cannot, without a reasonable objective, be
selective about companies to whom it provides licenses or discriminate on the terms or
royalty it charges, as it would distort competition between reasonable licensees. Therefore,
similar licenses by the licensor with other companies should be shown as comparable licenses
while determining the correct royalty rate. Also, the royalty associated with a particular
patented technology should be commensurate with the actual value that the technology adds
to the overall standard and to the product in which it is implemented.12
Therefore, the analysis has set a logical and consistent methodology to compute FRAND rate
royalty. The opinion might be useful to other courts dealing with similar patent infringement
suits and also in the process of negotiation between parties even before a matter is brought to
a court.
FRAND rates were also determined in the case of Innovatio IP Ventures13 where the
company brought an action against numerous coffee shops, restaurants, hotels and other
commercial entities for using its Wi-Fi standards illegally. It proposed a 6% benchmark
royalty rate measured against the value of the end product incorporating wireless
functionality, adjusted by a “feature factor” that reflected the contribution of the wireless
component to the end product. However, this demand evidenced the instance of patent holdup
and the reasonable royalty was found to be only $0.0956 per unit. The analysis was done
based on Judge Robart’s modified Georgia Pacific factors and was mainly based on factors
relating to importance and technical contribution of patent portfolio to the standard and to the
alleged infringer’s accused products and comparable licenses.14
FRAND litigation in India
FRAND litigation arrived in India when Telefonaktibolaget LM Ericsson (“Ericsson”), which
is one of the world’s largest telecommunication companies and claims to have the largest
number of cellular patents in the world, some of them being SEPs, sued the local Indian
8
Georgia Pacific Corp. v United States Plywood Corp, 446 F.2d 295 (1971).
Ericsson v D-Link ,(E.D. Tex. 6 August 2013); Realtek v LSI, Case No. 13-16070 (9th Cir. 2014).
10
In Re Innovatio IP Ventures LLC Patent Litigation , 921 F.Supp.2d 903 (2013).
11
Supra Note 2.
12
Supra Note 4, ¶80, 104.
13
Supra Note 9.
14
Rajiv Kr. Choudhry, “Searching for FRAND in Frand valuations”, SpicyIP, (December 12, 2013),
http://www.spicyip.com/2013/12/searching -for-frand-in-frand-valuations-part-2-3.html.
9
Volume 2
ISSUE 7
LAW MANTRA THINK BEYOND OTHERS
(International Monthly Journal, I.S.S.N 2321 6417)
Journal.lawmantra.co.in www.lawmantra.co.in
player Micromax15 for using its patented technologies relating to several wireless technology
standards such as GSM, EDGE and 3G without paying royalties. The negotiations between
the parties had been unsuccessful for a period of three years. Ericsson demanded
compensatory damages amounting to Rs. 1 billion and an ex parte and permanent injunction
against Microsoft.
A single judge bench of Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction16, including
measures for confiscation of Micromax’s consignment at border by custom authorities. The
Court also ordered Micromax to deposit money in the range of 1.25% -2% of sale price of
affected as a condition precedent to the release of such products by Customs. As a
countermove, Micromax filed a complaint in the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”)
alleging abuse of dominant position by Ericsson.
Ericsson filed a similar suit17 before the Delhi High Court against Intex Technologies on the
same grounds seeking a similar relief. Intex too proceeded and filed a CCI complaint against
Ericsson.
The decisions in the above cases are still pending.
Major issues involved
1. Patent holdup:
Once a patent is adopted as a standard and achieves commercial acceptance, it becomes
‘locked-in’. It is necessary for a manufacturer to use the same; otherwise his product would
be incompatible with other companies’ products and hence unmarketable. Such a situation
strengthens the SEP holders’ bargaining power because the licensee does not have
alternatives to the same technology. Patent holdup occurs when a SEP holder takes advantage
of a locked-in patent by trying to impose unreasonable royalty rates. Unless constrained by a
SSO to comply with FRAND licences, the SEP holder can exploit the locked in position to
obtain significantly higher royalties than it would have obtained before the patent was
incorporated as a standard. However, even after committing to FRAND such a situation
arises due to the vague nature of FRAND.
In the cases of Micromax and Intex the CCI18 noted, “hold-up can subvert the competitive
process of choosing among technologies and undermine the integrity of standard-setting
activities. Ultimately, the High costs of such patents get transferred to the final consumers.”
Further, in such cases the licensor binds the licensee by a non-disclosure/confidentiality
agreement 19 with respect to the terms of the license which restrains the other licensees from
acquiring knowledge of the royalty rates imposed on such previous licenses. This acts as an
15
Ericsson v Micromax, CS(OS) 442/2013 (March 6, 2013).
Ericsson v Micromax, CS(OS) 442/2013 (12 November 2014).
17
Ericsson v Intex, WP(C) 464/2014 (January 21, 2014)
18
Micromax v Ericsson, Case No. 50/2013, Competition Commission of India, (November 12, 2013)
19
Id
16
Volume 2
ISSUE 7
LAW MANTRA THINK BEYOND OTHERS
(International Monthly Journal, I.S.S.N 2321 6417)
Journal.lawmantra.co.in www.lawmantra.co.in
impediment in the conduct of licensing negotiations between the parties and thus leads to
major competition concern20 in FRAND litigations.
The patent remedies to a patent holdup situation mainly lie in determination of a reasonable
royalty by the courts and providing the parties and opportunity to negotiate a post trial license
before judicially crafting an ongoing damages award.21 The post trial damages shall take into
account the changes in the parties’ bargaining positions and the resulting change in economic
circumstances, resulting from the determination of liability. 22
2. Royalty base:
The reasonableness of a royalty amount depends on the correct selection of the royalty base.
The SEP holders tend to impose the royalty rate on the net sale price of the final product
rather than only on the component which comprises the infringed patent. This means even if
SEP is used in a single component of a multi component product, the implementer would be
liable to pay the royalty on the components which do not include the SEP. In such cases, the
whole idea of FRAND diminishes as calculating a royalty on the entire product carries a
considerable risk that the patentee will be improperly compensated for non-infringing
components of that product.23
Thus the courts have considered ‘smallest saleable patent practicing unit’ (“SSPPU”) 24, in a
multi component product, as a proper royalty base for determining FRAND royalty rate. In
Virnetx Inc. v. Cisco Systems25, the Federal Circuit held that the royalty base must be closely
tied to the claimed invention rather than the entire value of the product. The SSPPU has been
widely accepted as an appropriate base in various patent damage cases. 26
Contrary to the SSPPU approach, the SEP holders evaluate the royalty rate on the basis of
Entire Market Value Rule (“EMVR”). EMVR is an exception to the general rule of
calculating the royalty on SSPPU. The EMVR Rule permits recovery of damages based on
the value of the entire apparatus containing several features, where the patent-related feature
is the basis for customer demand.27 In CSIRO v. Cisco Systems Inc.28, the court held that,
“Basing a royalty solely on chip price is like valuing a copyrighted book based only on the
costs of the binding, paper, and ink needed to actually produce the physical product. While
such a calculation captures the cost of the physical product, it provides no indication of its
actual value.” Therefore, in cases where a technology is implemented by a single component
and that technology may have more value than the component itself and it is a factor which
drives the consumer demand, using the end-user product as the royalty base would be
justified.
20
Broadcomm Corp v Qualcomm Inc, 501 F.3d 297, 314 (3d Cir. 2007).
Paice LLC v Toyota Motor Corp, 504 F.3d 1293, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
22
Telecordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., F. Supp.2d (D.Del. 2009).
23
LaserDynamic Inc. v Quanta Computer USA Inc, 694 F.3d 51 (2012).
24
Id.
25
No.13-1489 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
26
Wi-Lan v Alcatel-Lucent Case No. 6:10-CV-521(E.D. Tex. 28 June 2013); Golden Bridge Technology v Apple
Inc. (N.D.Cal. 18 May 2014).
27
Cornell v Hewlett Packard, 609 F. Supp. 2d 279 (2009).
28
(E.D. Tex. 23 July 2014).
21
Volume 2
ISSUE 7
LAW MANTRA THINK BEYOND OTHERS
(International Monthly Journal, I.S.S.N 2321 6417)
Journal.lawmantra.co.in www.lawmantra.co.in
3. Royalty Stacking:
Royalty stacking is the situation where royalties are layered upon each other leading to a
higher aggregate royalty. This happens when different SEP holders impose similar royalties
on different components of same multi component product, leading the royalties to exceed
the total product price. The court noted in Microsoft that 92 different entities had 350 SEPs
for 802.11 standard, which is a Wi-Fi standard developed by IEEE for high speed wireless
local area networking. 29 If each of these entities sought royalties similar to Motorola’s request
of 1.15% to 1.73% of the end-product price, the aggregate royalty to implement the 802.11
standard, which is only one feature of the Xbox product, would exceed the total product
price.30 It is argued that royalty stacking could be tackled by way of cross licensing, patent
pools and repeat play reputation. However, such methods might lead to a plethora of
competition concerns.
This concern was raised by the CCI in the cases of Micromax and Intex wherein the Delhi
High Court had ordered31 Micromax to pay the royalty to Ericsson on the basis of net sale
price of the phone rather than the value of technology used in the chipset incorporated in the
phone which was said to be infringed. Micromax alleged that due to this royalty for use of
same chipset in a smart phone is more than 10 times the royalty for ordinary phone, while the
chipset gives no additional value to a smart phone, then it gives to an ordinary phone and that
such misuse of SEPs would ultimately harm consumers. CCI noted that “For the use of GSM
chip in a phone costing Rs. 100, royalty would be Rs. 1.25 but if this GSM chip is used in a
phone of Rs. 1000, royalty would be Rs. 12.5. Thus increase in the royalty for patent holder is
without any contribution to the product of the licensee. Higher cost of a smartphone is due to
various other softwares/technical facilities and applications provided by the
manufacturer/licensee for which he had to pay royalties/charges to other patent
holders/patent developers. Charging of two different license fees per unit phone for use of the
same technology prima facie is discriminatory and also reflects excessive pricing vis-a-vis
high cost phones.”
4. Availability of Injunctive relief:
Threat of injunction becomes a powerful weapon when used by a SEP holder for enforcing its
royalty rates, as in such a case an SEP implementer would think that accepting an
unreasonable royalty would be less risky than curbing an action of infringement.32 The use of
injunctive relief33 against willing licensees is prima facie breach of FRAND commitment as
the FRAND royalty rates by itself are an adequate remuneration to the SEP. Such an action is
also considered to be abusive of dominant position and hence a violation of competition
laws.34 Therefore, an injunction should only be claimed when the licensee is unwilling to pay
the judicially determined FRAND royalty or where monetary compensation is not an
adequate remedy. Recently, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction35
29
IEEE 802.11 Standard. Accessed March 10, 2015.
http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.11-2012.pdf.
30
Supra Note 5 at 213.
31
Supra Note 16.
32
Fiona Scott Morton and Carl Shapiro ‘Strategic Patent Acquisitions’ 2014 Antitrust Law Journal (II) 79.
33
eBay Inc. v MercExchange LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006).
34
Apple Inc. v Motorola Inc No. 2012-1548 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 25, 2014).
35
Ericsson v. Xiaomi Technology & Ors, CS(OS) 3775/2014 (8 December 2014).
Volume 2
ISSUE 7
LAW MANTRA THINK BEYOND OTHERS
(International Monthly Journal, I.S.S.N 2321 6417)
Journal.lawmantra.co.in www.lawmantra.co.in
against Chinese cell phone manufacturer Xiaomi due to a plea by Ericsson over the
infringement of its SEPs, wherein it was prevented from selling, advertising, manufacturing
or importing the devices in question. The Court based its decision on the fact that Xiaomi had
failed to respond to Ericsson’s repeated communication attempts. The question which arises
now is if an alternative remedy in the form of damages is available, then whether injunction
should be granted in such a case. 36
The underlining principle behind granting of injunction is that a party must suffer an
irreparable damage if the same is not granted. The law on injunction in India is based on the
principles of equity. In the said case, the remedy available to the SEP holder is in the form of
royalty. The only thing which is to be determined is whether the quantum of the same is
adequate. Further, the moment a SEP holder indulges in setting up a SSO, he inevitably
accents to license the technology on FRAND terms. Hence, even if the royalty is lower, the
said is not an irreparable injury and hence, it is a humble submission that grant of the same by
the court has to be reconsidered.
Competition Issues
SEPs are sine qua non to technologies and SEP holders may use this situation to exploit other
smaller players in the market, which may in turn lead to abuse of their dominant position by
SEP holders. Article 82 of the European Union Treaty prohibits abusive behaviour. The same
is also prohibited as per Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 prohibits abuse of
dominant position by an enterprise or a group. The first question to determine whether an
enterprise or group has indulged in a dominant behaviour of abusive nature is determination
of relevant market which has not been in the Act. Under common parlance it may mean a
place where buyers and sellers meet and exchange of the impugned goods and services take
place. The pertinent question to be considered here is whether or not the Competition
Commission has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such cases in the first place. Section 3(5)
of the Competition Act, 2002 lays down that the right of IPR holders shall be exempted from
the provisions of the act meaning that IPR right holders shall have monopoly over their
rights. The Preamble of the Act states that it is a welfare legislation which shall protect the
right of the consumers by curbing anti-competitive and monopolistic practices in the market.
In Super Cassettes Industries v. Union of India37, the apex Court held that the Copyright
Board did not have the mechanism to adjudicate upon the issues pertaining to abuse of
dominance and hence, the commission was set up under the provisions of the then
Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practice Act, 1966 and it was the apt forum to adjudicate
upon such issues. The CCI for the first time in Micromax v. Ericsson38 came down heavily on
the abusive behaviour of Ericson and ordered enquiry by Director General by the same. The
said complaint was filed by the complainant Micromax under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act.
It contended that Ericsson was violating the FRAND terms by charging differential royalty
rates to different players in the market. Ericsson had compelled each player in the market to
enter into a Non-disclosure Agreement such that no player could reveal the royalty rates to
each other. The rates that were sought were very high and the same could not be paid under
36
SpicyIP, ‘Delhi High Court Grants Injunction Against Xiaomi’, http://spicyip.com/2014/12/breaking-newsdelhi-high-court-grants-injunction-against-xiaomi.html
37
1997 (94) ELT 302 All.
38
Supra Note 18.
Volume 2
ISSUE 7
LAW MANTRA THINK BEYOND OTHERS
(International Monthly Journal, I.S.S.N 2321 6417)
Journal.lawmantra.co.in www.lawmantra.co.in
any circumstance. CCI also stated that as per Section 62, the provisions of the Act were in
addition to and not in any derogation to any existing law. Hence, the Commission was within
its rights to adjudicate on the same and no law such as the IPR ones or any pending litigation
shall not bar the jurisdiction of the CCI.
The Courts across the world in cases such as the Google Consent/Motorola Mobility case,
have adjudicated upon the issue of SEPs and the violation of FRAND terms by SEP holders.
In Broadcom v. Qualcomm39, the court in relation to Wi-Fi SEPs adjudicated that Qualcomm
essentially formed a SSO to exploit royalty rates from its pools of SEPs. The Court held that
if a SEP holder entered into formation of a SSO to just gain profits out of the same and falls
back on its commitment, and then the same may be an anti-competitive conduct.
CCI in the cases of Intex and Micromax has held that the royalty rates demanded by Ericsson
were in violation of the competition laws and also raised concerns about patent holdup and
royalty stacking. They also went to the extent of determining the royalty rates which was a
first for any Competition Commission in the world. The Commission in both these cases
referred to Clause 6 of the ETSI IPR policy whereby each SEP holder is bound to furnish an
irrevocable written undertaking on the granting of licenses on FRAND terms which are to be
applied fairly and uniformly to similarly placed players. The Authority also stressed on the
possibilities of patent hold-up and royalty stacking by the SEP holder. Once the patent holder
of a SEP commits to licensing its patents to a SSO, the royalty which is to be claimed should
be based in FRAND terms only. 40 CCI determined the FRAND rates, rejecting the claims of
Ericsson that the same was purely contractual in nature. This is a first for any Competition
Authority in the world.
Ericsson further appealed this order of CCI on the Micromax case before the Delhi High
Court which categorically stated that CCI did not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate on the
issue though it asked the Director General to submit its report directly to the Court. The Court
further fixed the royalty rates without any trial and asked Micromax to inform Ericson about
imports in consonance with IPR Rules, 2008. This was appealed by Micromax before the
Division bench, whereby it upheld the rates but emphasized that the order was not to be
construed in favour of either party.
Therefore, under the said circumstances, it shall be prudent if adequate trial is given to both
the parties and rates are determined by the Court without prejudice to any party and keeping
in mind the interests of the end consumers at large.
Other Considerations
1. Parallel Imports:
Parallel importation is the import of patented goods outside the distribution channels
contractually negotiated by the IP owner. For example, ‘A’ holds patent over a product ‘X’ in
India and also in China. There is a difference in the prices at which the product is sold in both
countries. If ‘B’, an Indian company, imports such a product from China in order to utilise
the benefit of the price difference, such an import would be called as a parallel import. The
39
40
Supra Note 20.
“FRAND: Challenge for competition authority”, http://www.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/3/523.abstract.
Volume 2
ISSUE 7
LAW MANTRA THINK BEYOND OTHERS
(International Monthly Journal, I.S.S.N 2321 6417)
Journal.lawmantra.co.in www.lawmantra.co.in
rationale behind parallel imports is to obtain patented goods at a lower price by involving in
price arbitrage and exploiting the price difference of the product in both countries. It is based
on the doctrine of international exhaustion, which says that once the ‘first sale’ of a patented
product is made by the patentee, then she exhausts the further distribution rights over such a
product as such a sale is a sufficient reward for the patentee.
Section 107A(b) of The Patents Act, 1970 provides protection to parallel importers. Indian
manufacturers import the components from neighbouring countries such as China so that they
can incorporate them in their products and sell the same at a lower price. These should be
covered under the garb of parallel imports and the Indian importers shall be protected from
the charge of infringement. If the same is true, then a conundrum arises as to whom should
the SEP Holder sue. This depends on firstly, whether the product is patented, if yes, in which
country and secondly, whether the exporter is duly authorised under the law to sell and
distribute the product in the importing country. If parallel imports are taken into consideration
and the SEP owner sues the exporter of the patented products also, then it might lower the
burden on the Indian companies.
Conclusion
In retrospection, one can possibly say that a fine line between corporate autonomy on one
hand and consumer interest on another ought to be maintained. The stand taken by Ericsson
may not necessarily be wrong in light of the global scenario on the issue of SEPs. The law
with respect to SEPs is unclear and judgements with respect to the same have differed from
territory to territory. It has to be realised that SEPs are not used by the licensees due to a lack
of choice of alternatives, but the same is done in order to maintain operability and
compatibility between the symbiotic technologies. It is also to be considered that a global
giant like Ericsson cannot be allowed to exploit its global position in markets such as that of
India. To put things in perspective, even the holder of a single patent can be deemed to be a
dominant player in the relevant market. Further, the increasing number of interim injunctions
granted by the Indian courts might put the parties in such a bargaining position where the
SEP holder has an upper hand.
What has to be realised that a country such as ours cannot afford to lose its global image on
the basis of lack of development of IPR jurisprudence. While companies must be mandated to
pass their technology on the basis of FRAND commitments, it is also pertinent to note that
rights of the patent holder are also to be safeguarded.
Volume 2
ISSUE 7